Here is why "gun registration" is a freedom killer...

[Dr Kynes]

[/B]

dude, you're preaching to the choir..i'm am trying to comeup with IDEAS for COMPROMISE and SOLUTION..not keep debating over the same stale talking points..

compromise aint gonna happen.

gun owners will no more surrender their FULLY ILLUMINATED rights under the 2nd amendment than you will compromise on your nebulous, found no-place in the constitution, court created "right" to have an abortion.

as sacred as the sacrament of abortion is to the left, gun owners are more devoted to their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[UncleBuck]

compromise aint gonna happen.

gun owners will no more surrender their FULLY ILLUMINATED rights under the 2nd amendment than you will compromise on your nebulous, found no-place in the constitution, court created "right" to have an abortion.

as sacred as the sacrament of abortion is to the left, gun owners are more devoted to their right to keep and bear arms.

no one is talking about disarming, but background checks, magazine capacities, and the like are all fully constitutional. see heller.

what you want are well-equipped mass murderers with no deterrents.

 

[Rob Roy]

no one is talking about disarming, but background checks, magazine capacities, and the like are all fully constitutional. see heller.

what you want are well-equipped mass murderers with no deterrents.

[FONT=georgia, serif] [/FONT]“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” - Voltaire

 

[schuylaar]

so many things wrong with this statement.

this is debate forum with no right/wrong opinions

the right to keep an bear arms was secured in the second amendment as a check on tyrannical government, not for hunting or defending against indian attacks or even for defense against bandits.
free men can bear arms, only the oppressed, or those who are about to be, are prohibited. thats been the nature of arms prohibitions since the dawn of time.

exactly, how do you know this?

hunting is not a sport. some make their living from hunting, and some get their food from hunting. that you do not hunt changes nothing.

really? have you discussed this with wayne la pierre..he'll tell you different.

gun registration is a prelude to gun siezure. thats how the nazis did it, thats how the bolsheaviks did it, thats hoe ireland did it, thats how the brits did it, and thats how the australians did it.

i agree that registration does not thwart someone who is predisposed to gun violence.

if you hunt large game you need a heavy rifle, for deer sized game a medium rifle, for varmints, and rabbits etc. you need a small rifle, for fowl, a shotgun is required, for defense against banditos, or for those times you dont need to pack a big gun, pistols.
SOME people just need one gun, some need NO gun, others need a variety.

understood and i don't have a problem with that..do you really need an automatic machine gun though to hunt rabbit?

semi-auto rifles are common. my grandfather's deer rifle is a semi-automatic made in the 1930's. "hollow points" are designed to expand, and deliver all their energy on the target rather than passing through. only the military is prohibited from using hollow point rounds cuz that would be "cruel" i use hollowpoint, controlled expansion or partition bullets in all my arms, they are for effectiveness not "mass murder". cops use hollow points too. because they WORK and you dont have bullets passing through the target and off into the crowd.

retinal scanners, magical lock-boxes, atrocities, their mom's gun... those are bullshit talking points, not facts or reality.

the paradigm is shifting, kynes..retinal/thumbprint scanners are the solution..

 

[Rob Roy]

the paradigm is shifting, kynes..retinal/thumbprint scanners are the solution..

You think 4 nickels is a paradigm shift. More intrusion under threat of violence is hardly a solution to violence.

 

[UncleBuck]

You think 4 nickels is a paradigm shift. More intrusion under threat of violence is hardly a solution to violence.

 

[Dr Kynes]

no one is talking about disarming, but background checks, magazine capacities, and the like are all fully constitutional. see heller.

what you want are well-equipped mass murderers with no deterrents.

heller did NOT address "background checks" or magazine sizes.

nor were "background checks" or magazine sizes addressed in Mcdonald.

as usual you created a strawman, and employed reductio ad absurdum and ad hominem.

not bad for 2 short lines.

you are the fallacy master.

 

[UncleBuck]

heller did NOT address "background checks" or magazine sizes.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



unless background checks do not count as a "condition or qualification on the sale of firearms" (they do count as that) and unless 100 round ammo "drums" are in common use (they are not), then you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

heller even goes farther than that, too.

oopsie doopsie.

 

[Dr Kynes]

the paradigm is shifting, kynes..retinal/thumbprint scanners are the solution..

no, they are science fiction.

you may believe that "the paradigm is shifting" but thats only within your own experience.

visit rural america now and then and youll see guns everywhere.

urbanites always believe that the world is dominated by the 5 square blocks they live in, and what they see on seinfeld.

if you ever seen a mountain lion in your yard you would hold a different opinion on the "paradigm"

 

[UncleBuck]

no, they are science fiction.

you may believe that "the paradigm is shifting" but thats only within your own experience.

visit rural america now and then and youll see guns everywhere.

urbanites always believe that the world is dominated by the 5 square blocks they live in, and what they see on seinfeld.

if you ever seen a mountain lion in your yard you would hold a different opinion on the "paradigm"

you've made it clear what you mean by "mountain lion" by now.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



unless background checks do not count as a "condition or qualification on the sale of firearms" (they do count as that) and unless 100 round ammo "drums" are in common use (they are not), then you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

heller even goes farther than that, too.

oopsie doopsie.

conditions on commercial sale like...
prohibitions for felons and crazies not bans of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, not "background checks" designed to disqualify as many people as possible for bullshit, and not "waiting periods" which are merely an annoyance.

shit NOT mentioned in a supreme court opinion are not included simply because you want them to be there.

you are creating law without even the dubious benefit of a bench and a robe.

 

[schuylaar]

The Founders had all sort of opinions but that one is not in there. Really Jefferson was in the clouds and a clear minority on this.

The slave rebellion question was a different story. Very real. So, man-killing, homestead protection is the 2nd A. Instant Militia. Minutemen. Self Preservation of self rule.

agreed

 

[schuylaar]

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."- Alexander Hamilton

luckily all the firearms in my family have been passed down for generations so no registration there, although i do want to purchase a 12 gauge, but i dont want some guy coming for my guns one day

i agree however, we must make certain adjustments for the times..retina/print scan..the technology is here, this can be done.

 

[UncleBuck]

conditions on commercial sale like...
prohibitions for felons and crazies not bans of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, not "background checks" designed to disqualify as many people as possible for bullshit, and not "waiting periods" which are merely an annoyance.

shit NOT mentioned in a supreme court opinion are not included simply because you want them to be there.

you are creating law without even the dubious benefit of a bench and a robe.

yep, shit on the chessboard and fly away once you're shown to be full of bullshit. don't forget to create a few strawmen first.

well done, kiddo.

 

[schuylaar]

If you think there are no more Indians, ie bad guys, cults and idiots, an other vicious persons, and if you think there is no more land to defend, my, my.....then you have not suffered a home invasion.

Yet, I have. I had life and land to defend and I did, the best I could. That was my responsibility. They say this happens about 1 Million times per year...saves that is.

So, is that 1/2 of home invasions are saves, or 10%? It is not the responsibility of government to take on the needs the few, the lonely, and afraid, in dire trouble. They cannot. Impossible.

So, the homestead still exists and the frontier is your front door. And they don't just shoot bows and arrows any more. But, where we are headed is Minority Report, sure as anything. Maybe not the future cast Witches, but submitting to Police Bots I may live to see.

You ever grok the meaning of that movie title? I only just did when I wrote it down.

However, even then, mistakes will be made and we are still all Sovereigns that have granted SOME rights to a governance, for the needs of the many. But, we still retain all other responsibilities.

This is a sad thing, that people forget that last sentence. We Constituted this mess, But now it seems too perfect, and it seems to be going all, I Robot. The fatal flaw of Vicky the uber-bot, Saving us all. I don't want that, but it may be the result of forming "...a more perfect Union." Like the 3 Laws, a hidden flaw, of "toss out all guns."

I don't want the Robots to pick and choose who gets shot invading my house or if I get shot. I'll be doing some shooting back regardless.

Print Guns, Robots and Drones. Fuck Them.

i've watched minority report/i robot a bazillion times..i believe people DO have the right..make no mistake however, we must improve upon the access..just like a cell phone/ipad/iphone/laptop.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you've made it clear what you mean by "mountain lion" by now.

so now "mountain lion" is secret code for, i assume, black people?

http://www.kval.com/news/national/130440073.html

now it all makes sense!

 

[schuylaar]

compromise aint gonna happen.

gun owners will no more surrender their FULLY ILLUMINATED rights under the 2nd amendment than you will compromise on your nebulous, found no-place in the constitution, court created "right" to have an abortion.

as sacred as the sacrament of abortion is to the left, gun owners are more devoted to their right to keep and bear arms.

we can retro-fit any gun..whom ever can bring this to market will make a killing..

i agree with bucky, kynes..you're being very strawmanistic in this debate by introducing abortion now..

you are not looking for solution, just debate.

 

[schuylaar]

no one is talking about disarming, but background checks, magazine capacities, and the like are all fully constitutional. see heller.

what you want are well-equipped mass murderers with no deterrents.

bravo! standing o

 

[Dr Kynes]

we can retro-fit any gun..whom ever can bring this to market will make a killing..

i agree with bucky, kynes..you're being very strawmanistic in this debate by introducing abortion now..

you are not looking for solution, just debate.

no "we" cannot install imaginary devices on existing guns.

if such devices were not science fiction, i would not install one on my guns.

a strawman is setting up a weak argument designed to be easily defeated (erecting a man of straw, who the provocateur then battles heroically, thats why it is called that)

i offered a comparison of two things, MY rights (supported and protected in the constitution) which you hold in disdain and wish me to surrender, and YOUR rights (found nowhere in the constitution) which you will never give an inch on, EVER.

when you "compromise" on abortion, then you can start talking about compromise on the second amendment.

nobody will listen, cuz compromising on any of your REAL rights is retarded, just like defending your "right" to abortion.

 

[canndo]

I am tired so I am not gonna post a long response.

How would you about stopping a state from legislating against a particular activity? Personally, I am all for having the absolute fewest laws necessary on the books. I think an improved legal system would be one where a small subset of laws is permanently on the books (laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc), and every other law has a sunset of say five years where it goes away, with a requirement that each renewed law has to be publicly debated and voted on individually.

I agree that there should be a sunset clause on every non-essential spending law. However, that would subject us all to the daliances and frivolity of our system of government. In short, businesses and individuals could never be quite certain of the legal landscape they inhabited from administration to administration.